The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has reaffirmed a critical principle of Indian evidentiary law in its recent judgment in Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Madhu Mishra & 3 Ors. Dated 02.09.2024. The Commission held that photocopies, without proper verification or certification, do not constitute sufficient documentary evidence, especially in the context of insurance claim repudiations. This decision underscores the stringent standards set by the BSA, 2023, regarding the admissibility of documentary evidence in legal proceedings.

Case Background

The deceased husband of the complainant, had availed two insurance policies from the Insurer, one to secure a home loan taken and the other a group life insurance cover. After his death due to cancer, his family claimed the insurance benefit to settle the insured loan. The insurer however, repudiated the claim, alleging non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions such as hypertension and coronary artery disease, purportedly based on medical records from before the inception of the cover, recovered by its own private investigating agency. 

The Dispute Over Evidence

The insurer’s primary basis for repudiation was a set of photocopied medical documents, allegedly showing that the deceased had been treated for heart-related ailments prior to policy issuance. However, these documents were neither originals nor certified copies, nor were they supported by affidavits from the treating doctors. The complainant objected to their admissibility, arguing that mere photocopies, without proper authentication, could not be relied upon as evidence of non-disclosure or misrepresentation.

NCDRC’s Observations

The NCDRC, upholding the State Commission’s order, made several key findings:

• Photocopies as Evidence: The Commission found that the insurer had failed to present credible, original, or certified documentary evidence to substantiate its claim of non-disclosure. The reliance on unverified photocopies did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements under Indian law.
• Burden of Proof: The insurer could not establish a direct nexus between the alleged pre-existing conditions and the cause of death, which was cancer. The Commission emphasized that even if non-disclosure was proven, it would only be material if directly related to the insured event.
• Principle of Uberrimae Fidei: While insurance contracts require utmost good faith as affirmed by Satwant Kaur Judgment, the Commission reiterated that allegations of suppression of material facts must be backed by admissible evidence, not mere speculation or unsupported documents.

Indian Evidence Act: The Legal Standard

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, governs the admissibility of documentary evidence:

• Primary Evidence (Section 57): The original document itself must be produced for the court’s inspection.
• Secondary Evidence (Sections 58-60): Photocopy of document – The photocopy of document can be treated as 'secondary evidence' provided it satisfies the conditions enumerated in any of the clauses of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act or Section 60 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. In absence of showing original one and existence of original copy to which evidence is the photocopy, the document cannot be treated as secondary evidence. Furthermore, as clarified by the Supreme Court in J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani (AIR 2007 SC 1721), secondary evidence is admissible only when primary evidence is unavailable and a proper explanation for its absence is provided. A simple, uncertified photocopy cannot be relied upon as evidence unless it is proven to be a true copy of the original.

Implications for Insurers and Policyholders

This judgment is a significant reminder for insurers: repudiation of claims must be based on robust, admissible evidence. Unsupported photocopies, especially those lacking certification or verification, cannot form the basis for denying insurance benefits. For policyholders, the decision reinforces the right to fair adjudication and the necessity for insurers to act transparently and in good faith when handling claims.

Conclusion

The NCDRC’s ruling in Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Madhu Mishra & 3 Ors. not only upholds the rights of the insured but also reiterates a foundational principle of Indian evidentiary law: photocopies, unless properly authenticated, do not constitute valid evidence. The judgment serves as a precedent, ensuring that consumer justice is not compromised by procedural shortcuts or insufficient proof, and that the standards of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, remain paramount in all legal proceedings involving documentary evidence.